v2 G.O.A.T Round 1 Group 15

Yesterday’s group was dominated by one of the hot favourites for this entire competition Mohammed Ali, he eventually ended the day with 60% of the vote, the biggest winning round one margin so far. Following him into round 2 in second place was Ayrton Senna, who captured 22% of the vote, missing out on round 2 and leaving the tournament at the first stage are Richie McCaw and Martin Johnson

Today we have two articles written by forum members, please feel free to submit your own argument below for the ones not championed.

Please vote for the competitor you believe has achieved the most in sport and should progress into the next round.

Please leave a comment as to why you voted

Andrew Johns- Rugby- Championed by 88chris05

As all sports fans know, the question of whether or not it's fair to judge the best of today's crop from any given sport to the greats who went before is one which is never far away, regardless of if you're in the stands, out on the pitch or mulling over the finer points of sport over a pint in the pub.

However, former professional Australian Rugby League forward and now highly-respected broadcaster, Phil Gould, had his own take on this matter when asked if Andrew 'Joey' Johns, the talismanic halfback of the Newcastle Knights, Australia and New South Wales, could be compared to the rugby league legends gone before such as Wally Lewis, Mal Meninga, Keith Holman and Peter Sterling in an attempt to decipher just who was / is the greatest player to have graced the thirteen-man code of rugby.

"Yes, it's totally unfair to compare players from past generations to Andrew Johns - because he's just better than they were."

Having had the pleasure of watching Johns ply his trade during his peak years, which I watched with awe as a young lad, then I'd overwhelmingly agree with Gould's statement. To me, Andrew Johns was the greatest rugby league player I've seen, for so many different reasons. A fantastic and natural leader, a charismatic figure who always played with a smile on his face, a tremendous player under pressure, one of the best goal kickers in either form of rugby and, of course, a genuine match winner, right from his remarkable NRL debut in 1993 (which we'll get to in just a second) until his retirement, brought about a little prematurely due to a long string of injuries, in 2007.

The dye of greatness was cast early as the nineteen year old Johns, only playing because of an injury to the Newcastle Knights' regular (up until then) halfback Matthew Rodwell, produced surely the greatest and most jaw-dropping debut match in the history of the NRL in late 1993 against the South Sydney Rabbitohs. Playing with the wide smile and robust confidence which would mark his whole career, Johns kicked seven out of seven field goals, scored two tries (one of them an absolutely superb burst, breaking through what looked to surely be a blind alley) and even threw in a drop goal for good measure. His 23-point performance earned him the Man of the Match award and, in the space of eighty minutes, the man affectionately known as 'Joey' to his fans had gone from being a virtual unknown to one of the hottest properties in rugby league.

But really, looking back, nobody should have been surprised - that was Johns all over, expanding the parameters of what most rugby league fans thought was possible, or thought was the norm. Half backs in rugby league weren't meant to carry that constant threat of scoring via a try the way Johns did. Nor were they supposed to own defensive / tackling skills which most full-backs or prop forwards would be pleased with. But with Johns, it was as if you could put him anywhere on the field and, almost effortlessly, he could produce the goods in that position.

It's generally considered that Johns' peak years were from around 1997 to 2003, but to gain a full appreciation of just how brilliantly Johns could totally run and dominate proceedings on the pitch, I'd suggest seeking out his comeback match in the 2005 State of Origin series. New South Wales, without the injured Johns, had been beaten in the series opener by Queensland - but as soon as Johns returned for the second match, the whole series had a totally different feel to it. In the second game, 'Joey' was magnificent; his kicking, as ever, was superb, and he was involved in each try New South Wales scored that day, I believe, the pick of his contributions being an outstanding piece of vision in the form of a sharpe, short pass through two Queensland players to Danny Buderas - another try conjoured out of nothing.

It must have been particularly satisfying for Johns to have forced a couple of errors from Queensland's Darren Lockyer in that match, as a side note. By 2005, Johns was considered a little past his best and, with his constant struggles with injuries, there were some who felt that Lockyer had now taken his place as the world's best player. But by consistently drawing the mistake from Lockyer with his knack for waiting as long as possible before unloading the dangerous ball at just the right moment, Johns reminded everyone that, when he was at his best, he was still rugby league's finest exponent.

Writing this, I'm also reminded of how Johns, who by now was a long-serving captain of the Knights, dragged them kicking and screaming to victory over the St. George Dragons, capping off an amazing performance with a high-pressure, last-second conversion in 2003. Or I could harp on about how, when seemingly running in to a complete dead end in the final few seconds of the 1997 Grand Final against the Manly Sea Eagles, Johns somehow spun and fired off the telling pass which let in Steve Albert to get over the line and secure a first Premiership title. In fact, I'm reminded of a lot of great Johns moments where he made the key difference between defeat and victory, because there were so many of them.

And his importance is demonstrated by the decline in fortunes of both the Newcastle Knights and New South Wales since his retirement. After winning the Premiership in 1997 and 2001, the Knights are now a shadow of their former selves. New South Wales, after being comfortably on top in the State of Origin series of the nineties and early twenty-first century, without Johns they now find themselves being dominated by Queensland each and every series - the 2012 edition was the seventh in succession which they've lost.

Some players are fortunate enough to tick of the big, notable achievements of their sport. Johns, however, collected such accolades as if they were stamps. By the time of his retirement, he was the leading points scorer in the 99-year history of Australian national rugby league, with 2,176 from his 249 matches. He was the first player ever to win the Golden Boot (awarded to the player judged to have been the best in the world that year) twice, doing so in 1999 and 2001. He is the only man to have won the Dally M medal (awarded to the best player that year in Australia) three times, having scooped it up in 1998, 1999 and 2002. At the Rugby League World Cup of 1995, Johns was voted the Player of the Tournament. He completed his domestic set by earning the prestigious Clive Churchill medal, given to the Man of the Match in a Grand Final, in 2001.

And that was all while he was playing. In retirement, Johns was voted by the publication 'Rugby League Week' as the greatest player of the past thirty years (1978-2008). In 2012, Johns was names as one of rugby league's 'Immortals', only the eighth man to receive the honour (and the quickest to do so since retiring) in the history of the game.

There is not a single box left unticked. When Johns was forced to retire in 2007, John Fordham stated, "He's the best player I've ever seen in either code of rugby, and there are people out there far more qualified than myself who will say the exact same." Well, I'm far less qualified than Fordham, but I must still agree with him wholeheartedly. Andrew Johns was like no other rugby league player I've seen before or since. You just kept waiting and waiting for that poor showing one day, or the bad run of form which must surely come eventually - but it never did.

To me, rugby league just isn't the same without him. There was something indomitable about Johns when he played, and it was such a joy to watch; the way he could beat his man, break up opposition attacks, his fantastic play-making ability and, of course, his goal kicking which carved out a place for himself in the record books. Often, when 'Joey' returned from an injury lay off, Newcastle Knights fans would pack the (then known as) Marathon Stadium with tribute banners reading, 'Finally God has come back to Marathon.' I, for one, wish that were possible.

Andrew Johns - simply the greatest rugby league player of all time

Henry Armstrong- Boxing- Championed by superflyweight

It's probably the case that for all but the more historically minded posters from the boxing forum, Henry Armstrong is going to be a bit of a mystery name. However, "Homicide Hank" has every right to be considered in this process and his exploits known to a wider audience. Armstrong might not be a household name but amongst keen boxing historians, he's pretty much a universal pick in the top 5 pound for pound fighters of all time. The respected IBRO picked him as the third greatest fighter of all time (Sugar Ray Robinson and Harry Greb took the top 2 spots).

Having turned pro in 1931, Armstrong fought frequently (he'd eventually rack up 181 fights by the time he retired) mostly with great success until in 1937 his career really took off. Incredibly so! Henry fought 27 times in 1937. 27!!! Unthinkable now when the top fighters barely manage three fights in a year. In the first 22 of those 27 fights he won 21 of them by knockout. In the 23rd fight he knocked out reigning champion, Petey Sarron in the 6th round to win the featherweight world title. He won his remaining four fights of 1937 with four more knockouts. So across 27 fights in 1937, Armstrong won 27 times and 26 of those victories came by knockout. Added to that he now had the featherweight title belt in his possession. A truly incredible year but Armstrong was about to surpass it. What Armstrong did in 1938 is simply the greatest calendar year any boxer has ever had. Harry Greb's 1922 is amazing but Armstrong's 1938 is staggering and almost beyond comprehension.

Homicide Hank managed 14 wins out of 14 fights in 1938 - all while he was still reigning featherweight champion. He'd continue the run of knockouts he's accumulated in 1937 by knocking out his first 7 opponents of the year (including future champion, Chalky Wright). In his 8th fights of the year, the very good Baby Arizmendi would see the final bell to end the run of knockouts but not the run of victories. However, Armstrong's finest moments were just around the corner. Armstrong jumped up a couple of weight divisions to challenge the great welterweight champion Barney Ross. Armstrong weighing in at less than the lightweight limit comprehensively beat the great Ross over 15 rounds to add the welterweight title to his featherweight title. Not satisfied with this, Armstrong immediately challenged the excellent lightweight champion Lou Ambers. Armstrong would take the title courtesy of a split decision and became the first person to ever hold three different world titles at different weights concurrently. In an era when there were only eight different weight divisions, Armstrong held nearly half of the available belts on offer.

Much has been made of Manny Pacquiao’s weight hopping exploits over the last few years and whilst what Manny has done has been impressive, it pales in comparison to Armstrong’s exploits. Armstrong gathered almost half of the available weight belts in less than 12 months and did so by beating the best men in each weight class. There were no weight stipulations imposed on his opponents and Armstrong would take the welterweight title whilst weighing in as a lightweight.

Although Armstrong would contentiously lose the lightweight title in a rematch with Ambers, he would go on to defend the welterweight title several times and would have a pop at the middleweight title (which he would have won but for the judges dubiously scoring his fight with Cerefino Garcia a draw). He'd eventually lose the welterweight title in 1940 to Fritzie Zivic but he would continue to fight until 1945.

Armstrong would finish with a record of 150 wins (101 knockouts) from his 181 fights but it's the period between 1937 and 1940 that truly stands out. From 1937 to late 1940, he lost only one fight. His record against topflight competition during this time was 59 wins, 1defeat and 1 draw with 51 knockouts. He scored 27 straight knockouts during 1937-1938. It's arguable that during that 3 year period, Armstrong was the greatest and most dominant sportsman on the planet.

Let ‘s turn to the excellent Monte Cox to get a picture of what Armstrong was like in the ring:

"Armstrong was a marvel of the ring. He worked at a fast pace, had quick hands and unlike most fighters seemed to pick up speed as the rounds went on. He was also a strong puncher and defensively his bob and weave style kept him from receiving the full impact of his opponent’s blows. The truth of Henry Armstrong is that he had much better boxing skills than some give him credit for.

Most fighters tried to run from Henry, but he never let them get away. He stuck to his opponent’s like superglue and drove them into a corner or trapped them against the ropes and them proceeded to give them a good pasting. Fighters who tried to stand their ground against Hank had difficulty keeping up with his work rate. He would overwhelm them until they were forced to back up and then he would chase them down, pounding away until they were beaten men.

Upon his death it was discovered that Armstrong’s heart was a third larger than that of the average person. This allowed him to fight at a ferocious pace for 15 rounds without loss of breath. It seems certain that he could have done the same thing in a 20 round bout."

Armstrong won't be the most celebrated name of the 64 men and women that will be considered in this process, but there should be no doubt that he is fully deserving of his place among the greatest sports stars that the world has ever seen.

It's generally considered that Johns' peak years were from around 1997 to 2003, but to gain a full appreciation of just how brilliantly Johns could totally run and dominate proceedings on the pitch, I'd suggest seeking out his comeback match in the 2005 State of Origin series. New South Wales, without the injured Johns, had been beaten in the series opener by Queensland - but as soon as Johns returned for the second match, the whole series had a totally different feel to it. In the second game, 'Joey' was magnificent; his kicking, as ever, was superb, and he was involved in each try New South Wales scored that day, I believe, the pick of his contributions being an outstanding piece of vision in the form of a sharpe, short pass through two Queensland players to Danny Buderas - another try conjoured out of nothing.

By no means a rugby league fan but was living in Sydney during the 2005 State of Origin and Johns' impact was unbelievable. He simply scared the life out of Queensland!

11 Grand Slams speaks for itself, so voted for Rod Laver.

Superfly you have done a sterling job of championing Armstrong and I suspect he will need it. Think we need to focus on the three titles in three weight classes and hopefully make the level of that achievement live for those who do not follow boxing quite as closely as some of us. At the time there were only eight divisions in the sport and one belt per weight. One belt per division meant there were no second raters nursing joke titles you could pick up. You had to win it against a very good fighter, certainly in the case of Ross and Ambers they are amongst the finest their respective divisions have ever seen. Also with only 8 belts this meant Armstrong was at one point the holder of 37.5% of all belts available in the sport. Should also not be forgotten at this time that he took a run at Garcia’s middleweight belt and most agree he was damned unfortunate not to get the nod in that one. Henry was within a whisker of owning half the belts in the sport, truly unbelievable.

Like most boxing fans I have Robinson as top dog in the sport but if I could be persuaded any other fighters case it would be Armstrong. In the days of eight divisions only two guys have strong claims to be champions in two weights, Armstrong is one Bob Fitzsimmons is the other but Bob won his light heavyweight championship in the embryonic stages of the divisions history when the talent pool was pretty thin and most guys of size plied their trade at heavy. No such caveats apply to Armstrong, his divisions were well established and talent stacked.

Armstrong
Robinson
Leonard
Tyson
Ali
Greb
...mabe PBF to come. Who knew that 10% of the all time greats sportspeople would come from such a minority participation sport !

Superfly, you've done a great write up on Armstrong, and thanks for your Johns appreciation as well. It's a shame for me that someone I was asked to write about is in the same group as someone I rate as arguably THE greatest boxer of the lot!

Rowley, when trying to put in to context exactly what Armstrong achieved, I always try to pick out other Feather weight champions and go through what they'd have to do, and who they'd have to do it against, to compare.

It would be like Naseem Hamed, in the late nineties, winning his Featherweight title, them jumping up all the way to Welterweight (that's a gap of 21 lb, for those not in the know about boxing) to take on an acknowledged great of his time in De la Hoya and dethroning him, then coming instantly back down to Lightweight to outscore Shane Mosley for his title, and then boxing a draw with someone like Keith Holmes or William Joppy for a portion of the Middleweight title, all within a couple of years or so, and all while often weighing 140 lb or less (again, for those not in the know, the Welterweight and Middleweight division weight limits are 147 lb and 160 lb respectively).

I honestly don't think there's been a Featherweight champion born who could ever do it. The terms 'freak of nature' or 'one off' get overused, but Armstrong really was both of those things.

Who knew that 10% of the all time greats sportspeople would come from such a minority participation sport !

It wasn't a minority participation sport when Armstrong, Robinson and Greb fought and this whole process would be rendered a nonsense if it didn't include Ali.

In all fairness Diggers, one of those guys has no business being part of this process and three took part in the sport when it was anything other than a minority participation sport.

Chris I see what you are trying to illustrate but bad example to use, Naz would have done it easily.

Thanks jeff/chris. Armstrong's case is a difficult one because for boxing fans his achievements are obviously staggering but it's hard to convey that to those less familar with the sport.

LF Laver needs you here

Weaker shortlist today then.

Good write ups for two sportsmen I knew virtually nothing about.

First impressions:

Armstrong certainly merits a place in any Boxing Hall of Fame and has a very strong case for the Greatest Sportsman of 1938. I also particularly noticed that the IBRO place him third of all time behind Robinson and Greb (so unlucky with the foursome he ended up with on here). That is clearly a tribute to Armstrong but also possibly a condemnation as regards settling on the GOAT.

Johns is obviously highly regarded in a sport I don't follow. I don't dismiss him for that but my ignorance is another barrier he'll need to overcome. A lot of the write up seems parochial involving games for Newcastle Knights against teams in his own backyard. How much did he achieve on the international front?

Surprised not to see profiles for the other two candidates from our own tennis mafia. Laver was a clear great with a record to back that up but I would like to have seen that set out. Tough draw for King - she beat Bobby Riggs but Laver is a vastly superior opponent.

laver..

Rowley wrote:In all fairness Diggers, one of those guys has no business being part of this process and three took part in the sport when it was anything other than a minority participation sport.

Chris I see what you are trying to illustrate but bad example to use, Naz would have done it easily.

I honestly think 3 would have been more than plenty, personally I still think its debateable how much it was participated in by guys back in the day who actually trained and werent just tough blokes who got in the ring every now and again. Put it this way if boxing has 6-7 football should have about 20 IMO.
But there you go, tough one in the sense that I cant see anyone oft hese guys making the last 16, I think I'll see how the debate goes over the course of the day.

weak group though??

or am i being ignorant!!

Diggers wrote:Armstrong
Robinson
Leonard
Tyson
Ali
Greb
...mabe PBF to come. Who knew that 10% of the all time greats sportspeople would come from such a minority participation sport !

Any facts or figures to back this up? Could the same not be said about the tennis entries?

6oldenbhoy wrote:

Diggers wrote:Armstrong
Robinson
Leonard
Tyson
Ali
Greb
...mabe PBF to come. Who knew that 10% of the all time greats sportspeople would come from such a minority participation sport !

Any facts or figures to back this up? Could the same not be said about the tennis entries?

You seriously think as many people box as play tennis ? I see a lot more tennis courts around the place than I do boxing rings.
Boxing gets away with being considered mass participation because its always been hugely popular to watch in relation to other smaller sports.

Laver's one of those fascinating candidates that are very difficult to rank. As a tennis player, he's the only man to have completed the calendar year Grand Slam in the Open era (1969), to go with his 1962 slam as an amateur. His total of 11 Slam titles was completed by Australian and Wimbledon titles in 60 and 61 respectively (as an amateur) and Wimbledon in 68 (the first year when pros could compete).

The problem in assessing Laver's record is that between 1963 and 1967 (so 25 to 29 years old, probably his peak years) he was playing on and (from 1965) dominating the professional circuit, but was not allowed by the rules of the time to compete in the slam events that now make up the main elements of (for example) Federer's legacy. Obviously, the five slams, including the Grand Slam Laver won in the Open era are entirely merited, but there are the two unknowables:
1 - How many more slam titles would he have won during the 1963 to 1967 seasons?
2 - Would he have won the 6 slams of his amateur career had he been competing against the guys (Rosewall, Pancho Gonzalez) who had already turned pro?

One thing that is clear about Laver is that he was a player for his time - quite a small man (5' 8"), and with both reasonable power (one of the first players to predominantly use topspin on his groundsstrokes on both sides) and excellent volleying and touch play. His game would not have stood up all that well to the modern era of big hitters, but was well suited to the rackets and playing conditions of his era. Undoubtedly an all time great of men's tennis, but one who is difficult to place objectively.

As for Billie-Jean King, as a player she probably doesn't merit consideration in the GOAT debate - was very good but her record falls short of those of Graf, Navratilova and Court. What she did though was hugely increase the profile and commercialism of women's tennis - she really could be considered the spiritual 'mother' of the WTA.

Great write-up on Johns by 88Chris - the problem is that even though I know lots about RL (and played more than a little, hence the user-name), Johns exploits never really entered my consciousness because they relate mostly to club and state performances in Australia that I've never seen. When Aus come over to play England / Great Britain, more often than not they are so much superior that they don't need to show quite how good they are. Maybe I'll look for a little highlights film on You Tube later, so I can understand what the fuss is about.

Armstrong - Well, he's another boxer (like Greb) who I'd never heard of but who (in keeping with the time) fought a lot and dominated across weight divisions. Boxing was clearly a very different sport (and much more a true sport rather than the current shambles of promoters steering their fighters into 'safe' titles), and I think the guys of the 30s to 60s deserve a huge amount of respect. The problem is that even then, Armstrong appears to be considered only top 3 to 5 pound for pound and obviously lacked the media profile of Ali or even some of the earlier heavyweights.

Really difficult to know who to vote for in this group - I can discount Billie-Jean King, but am torn between the other three.

This is a tight group for me as there's 2 people I've never heard of and 2 Tennis players from a few decades ago that I don't know that much about.

Surely Laverfan off the Tennis boards is the person to come on here and champion him!

Diggers wrote:

6oldenbhoy wrote:

Diggers wrote:Armstrong
Robinson
Leonard
Tyson
Ali
Greb
...mabe PBF to come. Who knew that 10% of the all time greats sportspeople would come from such a minority participation sport !

Any facts or figures to back this up? Could the same not be said about the tennis entries?

You seriously think as many people box as play tennis ? I see a lot more tennis courts around the place than I do boxing rings.
Boxing gets away with being considered mass participation because its always been hugely popular to watch in relation to other smaller sports.

agreed digs.. Boxing is just not a normal thing for kids to do!

however almost everyone has picked up a tennis racket and whacked a ball at some point

however almost everyone has picked up a tennis racket and whacked a ball at some point.

Have you never wrapped tea towels around your hand and tried to punch the living daylights out of your best friend in the back garden? Or was that just me?

guildfordbat wrote:

Johns is obviously highly regarded in a sport I don't follow. I don't dismiss him for that but my ignorance is another barrier he'll need to overcome. A lot of the write up seems parochial involving games for Newcastle Knights against teams in his own backyard. How much did he achieve on the international front?

Not that I am an expert, but there is not much international competition at RL, and what there is is dominated by Australia to an extent which makes the West Indies of the 80s pale in comparison. Essentially, RL has good presence in Aus, NZ and half of England. France play a bit but are usually well beaten by the other 3 sides. New Zealand did upset Aus in a WC a few years ago, but that's about as much as it gets.

In a similar way to Ice hockey and perhaps Basketball, the domestic RL scene can arguably be considered as the highest form of the game, so performances there must play a big part.

superflyweight wrote:

however almost everyone has picked up a tennis racket and whacked a ball at some point.

Have you never wrapped tea towels around your hand and tried to punch the living daylights out of your best friend in the back garden? Or was that just me?

Thats about as relevant to boxing as hitting a sponge ball with a plastic racket in your garden when you are four is to tennis.
How many people have stood in a ring and been able to score some sort of contest against anyone, compared to people playing tennis...on a tennis court.....and easily deciding a winner ? Id be amazed if everyone on here hasnt played tennis compared to a handful who have boxed.

For those questioning the participation levels of boxing in the thirties, forties and fifties (so basically the eras of Armstrong and Robinson), you could do worse than take a look at some of Gilbertt Odd's and Bob Mee's work on the subject.

Boxing was America's premier sport in that era. Television played a major role and boxing benefitted much more from its rise than other sports. A sport where the (then) basic and grainy cameras could focus on one spot (the ring) rather than having to chase a ball all over the shop made a lot more sense and was much easier to enjoy watching - there was a damn sight more boxing on American TV in those days than there was baseball, football etc.

Also, the wave of immigration in the first half of the twentieth century contributed heavily to this. As the lifestyle of Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans and Jewish Americans is naturally a lot easier (in the majority sense, of course!) these days, you see less young men from those ethnicities looking to fight their way out. Back then, of course, it was different. There were hundreds of thousands of hungry young men who had little other means of making money; Jimmy McLarnin, Gene Tunney (although he, unusually, did come from a fairly prosperous background), Mickey Walker etc were all of Irish stock / heritage, Willie Pep, Carmen Basilio, Lou Ambers etc represented the Italian-Americans, and then there were the great Jewish fighters such as Benny Leonard, Barney Ross and Al Singer.

You seldom see a top class Irish-American, Italian-American or Jewish boxer now, but back then it was commonplace.

.

I do think the initial 64 nominations has been a bit skewed - a few too many cricketers and boxers, who could perhaps have been replaced by candidates from lower profile sports (good suggestions for the likes of Stenmark or Tomba for alpine skiing, Jahangir Khan for squash, and I'd in Bjorn Daehle for cross country skiing).

No problem with the inclusion of the likes of Greb or Armstrong (or Ali, obviously), but I think Leonard should have been missed out and Tyson (for all his fearsome profile) didn't merit consideration.

As for the cricketers, I'd have left out Lara and Tendulkar (after all, there is only one GOAT batsman), and I think including both Warne and Murali was generous - one (probably Murali on account of his better bowling record) would have been enough.

Thats about as relevant to boxing as hitting a sponge ball with a plastic racket in your garden when you are four.
How many people have stood in a ring and been able to score some sort of contest against anyone, compared to people playing tennis...on a tennis court.....and easily deciding a winner ?

What the Smeg has that got to do with any blydi thing mun! This is abourt the greatest, not a comparison of sports.

chris i actually made a point yesterday that boxing is one sport where is was probally bigger participation in the past.. and maybe the best dont come from this era- as i believe they do with all other sports due to particpation rising

Glas the more popular the sport is in regards to particpation-the tougher it surely is to become the best?

wouldnt you agree. therefor a decent talking point!

Up until around 1950 boxing was second in popularity to only baseball in terms of popularity. I do actually have statistics to back up the participation levels but the book is at home so you will either have to wait or take my word for it. The same is true of most of Europe and certainly was the case in the UK, again something I can support with evidence. It was not until the entertainment tax was introduced in the UK in the early fifties that the popularity began to wane as small promoters found it impossible to make a living.

There has been research done that proves second generation immigrants to the US frequently turned to boxing in their droves as it was a way out of poverty. One only has to study the sport to see initially there was a mass of great Irish American fighters followed by Jewish fighters before black fighters began to dominate. Baseball was hugely popular but until Robinson was pretty much closed to black people and football was still largely a college sport and also in inner cities access to baseball pitches was not exactly readily available, the same is not true of boxing, as every city had a number of gyms. Also whilst title opportunities were not always available for black fighters, fights certainly were so whilst their path was not always paved with gold a living could be made. No mean feat in the depression years.

Glas a du wrote:

Thats about as relevant to boxing as hitting a sponge ball with a plastic racket in your garden when you are four.
How many people have stood in a ring and been able to score some sort of contest against anyone, compared to people playing tennis...on a tennis court.....and easily deciding a winner ?

What the Smeg has that got to do with any blydi thing mun! This is abourt the greatest, not a comparison of sports.

Participation levels should have plenty to do with it, Id have thought that was patently obvious to establishing a greatest from all sports. And if its to do with the greatest why are we having boxers listed who clearly are not the greatest ?
No badminton players, weightlifters, squash players, yachtsmen, kayakers etc etc who could be considered the greatest at their sports mentioned thus far.

dummy_half wrote:I do think the initial 64 nominations has been a bit skewed - a few too many cricketers and boxers, who could perhaps have been replaced by candidates from lower profile sports (good suggestions for the likes of Stenmark or Tomba for alpine skiing, Jahangir Khan for squash, and I'd in Bjorn Daehle for cross country skiing).

No problem with the inclusion of the likes of Greb or Armstrong (or Ali, obviously), but I think Leonard should have been missed out and Tyson (for all his fearsome profile) didn't merit consideration.

As for the cricketers, I'd have left out Lara and Tendulkar (after all, there is only one GOAT batsman), and I think including both Warne and Murali was generous - one (probably Murali on account of his better bowling record) would have been enough.

I agree (except that I would take Warne over Murali all day). I would add that Gavin Hastings bless him was an astonishingly poor pick. Apart from the sports you mentioned, it seems unlikely that we will have representatives from sports such as table tennis, Badminton and handball (and even fencing), all played extensively across the world, but minor sports in the UK. I guess that is somewhat inevitable, but worth considering for future such processes.

Boxing is arguably a more natural sport than any other. The desire to fight has always been there, as Cro-Magnon man would doubtless confirm if he were with us today. You may not see many boxing rings, compared with tennis courts, but you see just as many gyms where boxers still ply their trade. Tennis remains, especially in countries such as the UK, the preserve of the affluent. Boxing does not.

That's not to say that I'm voting for Armstrong here, great as he undoubtedly was. Second or third in a pound for pound sense is about right and his peak years stand comparison with anyone in sporting history but, all said and done, we are looking at a spell of 1937-40 there, a good deal shorter than many of the others in this group of 64.

Johns was a marvel, but so were Clive Churchill, Darren Lockyer (another recent great to gain the epithet of the greatest ever), Alex Murphy and a host of other RL legends. With respect to Chris, I can't view it as cut and dried that Johns is the finest of them all - he may be, but it's at least debatable.

With the tennis players, we have two outstanding candidates. For Billie Jean King, we have to look at her accomplishments outside the court at least as much as her on-court heroics, because she is not among the top 5 female tennis players of all time, unfortunately (Navratilova, Graf, Evert, Serena Williams, Margaret Court clearly ahead of her, in my view with arguments as well for Lenglen, Wills Moody and Connolly). 12 Grand Slams, including 6 Wimbledons, are not to be sneezed at, nor are the sheaf of doubles titles, but still. What she did for tennis, off court merits a second glance, however. She broke down the barriers of prejudice, in a game which has often been full of them, in a way arguably matched only by Arthur Ashe. It's appropriate that the two main courts at Flushing Meadow are named after these two great pioneers.

However, because of his remarkable longevity and above all, his ability to achieve the virtually unachievable, and to do so twice, seven years apart, what's more, my vote today goes to Laver. Would he have won the GS in 62 if Rosewall and Gonzalez were playing? Well, they were still not completely back numbers when he did so in 69, a year when he himself was hardly in the first flush of youth. Laver must be either first or second in the all-time rankings for men's tennis and in a game with an organised history of more than 130 years, that counts for a lot.

I actually think that this is a strong field, but Laver shades it, for me.

mystiroakey wrote:Glas the more popular the sport is in regards to particpation-the tougher it surely is to become the best?

wouldnt you agree. therefor a decent talking point!

I wouldn't actually. Golf is a massive participation sport, but only a very small percentage are any good. The smaller the sport, the larger the percentage may be, but its how you deal with your opponents that counts not whether your sport is more or less valid. Also many top sportsmen and women have choices as to which sporting career they persue and a few could get to the top of the tree in whichever sport they eventually chose. There are also a lot of attributes, especially in individual sports, which are common and in fact are the building blocks of greatness in each one. This is about who displays most of those core talents in my view, that's how I've been voting anyway.

Depends from where you're from. I'm from Belfast and there was one private court near me, so I didn't play any tennis. There were plenty of boxing gyms though.

In terms of world wide participation, China and India have pretty strong amateur setups. As do Central and South East Asia. Europe are particularly strong. South America produce some great fighters. Africa are improving all the time as well. America has always been strong, but are going through a lull. So particapation is pretty widespread.

glas its all about maths really and probailties..

the bigger the particpation the more chance you have of a higher quality field aty the highest level. and to become th best turns into odds like winning the lottery over just winning 5 numbers!! for example

I've gone for 'Homicide Hank' Armstrong. A remarkable fighter and an even more remarkable record in a bloody tough time to be a boxer.

6oldenbhoy wrote:Depends from where you're from. I'm from Belfast and there was one private court near me, so I didn't play any tennis. There were plenty of boxing gyms though.

In terms of world wide participation, China and India have pretty strong amateur setups. As do Central and South East Asia. Europe are particularly strong. South America produce some great fighters. Africa are improving all the time as well. America has always been strong, but are going through a lull. So particapation is pretty widespread.

You can say the same for stacks of sports who wont have a contender. We are going to end up with as many boxers as footballers which for me is totally skewed but there you go.
Personally I think it would have been better to have representatives from other sports who were clearly the best in their field rather than have so many from so few sports. But maybe we will get a few of them in the last groups.

Mike Selig wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Johns is obviously highly regarded in a sport I don't follow. I don't dismiss him for that but my ignorance is another barrier he'll need to overcome. A lot of the write up seems parochial involving games for Newcastle Knights against teams in his own backyard. How much did he achieve on the international front?

Not that I am an expert, but there is not much international competition at RL, and what there is is dominated by Australia to an extent which makes the West Indies of the 80s pale in comparison. Essentially, RL has good presence in Aus, NZ and half of England. France play a bit but are usually well beaten by the other 3 sides. New Zealand did upset Aus in a WC a few years ago, but that's about as much as it gets.

In a similar way to Ice hockey and perhaps Basketball, the domestic RL scene can arguably be considered as the highest form of the game, so performances there must play a big part.

Thanks, Mike. Your analogy particularly noted.

Today's is difficult

I know a bit about King and Laver but Armstrong and Johns?

Agree with others about to many Cricketers and not enough from so called minority sports but hey, it's just a bit of fun.

There were plenty of boxing matches in my school playground.

Diggers has a point. I think 3 would probably have been enough though on balance. Ali, Robinson and Armstrong.

Good to see rugby league get an entrant. It is essentially a two state Australian game and a two county uk one though, and has never really produced a transcender.

This is laver v armstrong for me. Two legitimate greats.

Good to see rugby league get an entrant. It is essentially a two state Australian game and a two county uk one though, and has never really produced a transgender

Would be tough to play rugby league in make up and heels, milky.

milkyboy wrote:

Good to see rugby league get an entrant. It is essentially a two state Australian game and a two county uk one though

The current world champions may disagree....

Sorry diggers, 2 English counties and 2 Australian states with a league that pay's well enough to attract a few kiwi's. That better?

mystiroakey wrote:weak group though??

or am i being ignorant!!

I'm with you, dont know anything about any of them...

Diggers wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

Good to see rugby league get an entrant. It is essentially a two state Australian game and a two county uk one though

The current world champions may disagree....

To a degree Diggers:

It is essentially a two state Australian game, a handful of less-well-off suburbs NZ game, and a two county uk one though

South Auckland is probably the greatest nursery of rugby players (for both codes) on the planet though

superflyweight wrote:

Good to see rugby league get an entrant. It is essentially a two state Australian game and a two county uk one though, and has never really produced a transgender

Would be tough to play rugby league in make up and heels, milky.

Ha, I actually thought that was an interesting predictive error from my iPhone, you little tinker.

milkyboy wrote:Sorry diggers, 2 English counties and 2 Australian states with a league that pay's well enough to attract a few kiwi's. That better?

Dont get tetchy with me just because im being pedantic.....

WARNING: DO NOT VOTE LAVER

A very poor group. The TME Seal of Approval reluctantly goes to the unknown boxer - by default.

Seeing as Rod Laver is nominated in this group, we thought it would be appropriate to post an article we originally penned back in March 2010 (edited for up-to-date information) pertaining to Rod Laver and his legacy.

For years, since ‘Potato’ Pete Sampras and Roger Federer respectively set new records for Grand Slam titles won, journalists and casual observers have mentioned the name Laver as a contender to the throne.

Laver won 11 Grand Slam titles but ‘missed’ 5 years of Grand Slam events (21 in total) during the professional-amateur divide. Laver won all 4 Grand Slams in 1962, his final year before turning pro, and won all 4 again in his first full season back, 1969. On paper this seems impressive.

The Laver Ol’ Boys would have you believe that ‘The Rocket’ is the best ever. They say that he would have won 15 plus Grand Slams during his 21 event ‘exile’. This would have left Rod with 26 plus Grand Slams to his name. Too good to be true?

Of course it is.

It is important to remember that Laver’s first 6 Slams were won as an amateur, when all of the top players were playing as professionals. These 6 titles are worthless. There were many superior players to Laver at this time – Gonzales, Rosewall and Hoad, to name a few – and Laver wouldn’t have won any of those 6 Slams if he was competing against the strongest field.

When Laver did turn professional, he was totally uncompetitive against the top pros for a year and a half. This proves that Laver's first 6 Slams carry no credibility. But Laver did, eventually, become the top man. In total, during his pro career, he won 8 out of the 15 professional Slams.

If there had been 4 pro Slams per year, perhaps Laver would have 2 more, maybe 3 if we account for the 21st Slam he ‘missed’. That, generously, gives him 11 out of 21 Slams. Very good, but nothing like the 15/16 that the Ol’ Boys ramble on about. In addition to the 5 Slams he won during the Open Era, that gives him 16.

But something that the Ol’ Boys never mention is that the pro Slams only contained 16 players in the draw. Nothing like the 128 player draws that the modern day Grand Slams have. Laver only had 15 other players to contend with in all 15 pro Slams that he played.

Possibly the most important factor in this debate is the depth of talent in the game at that time. Only someone totally detached from logic would disagree that it’s harder to win Slams in the modern era than it was in the ‘60s.

Ken Rosewall, in 1974, reached 2 Grand Slam Finals aged 39. Inconceivable in today’s game. That is a damning indictment on the level competiton at the time. What does that say about Laver? If Rosewall could reach Finals aged 39, why couldn’t a 32 year old Laver reach any Slam Finals? Laver failed to adapt. He didn’t have the power or the guile to pit his wits against the younger generation.

Pancho Gonzales was generally regarded as the best player of the pre-Open era. In 1970, Gonzales defeated Laver in a $10,000 winner-take-all, five-set match at Madison Square Gardens - when Gonzales was 41 years old.

Another important factor is that 3 out of the 4 Slams were played on grass during Laver’s era. How many more Slams would Roger Federer have if that was the case today? 4 at least. That takes Federer’s hypothetical tally to 21. Laver won his last Slam (his hypothetical 16th) aged 31. Federer only recently turned 31 and still has time to extend his lead (hypothetically 5 Slams) over Laver in the Grand Slam stakes.

The Ol’ Boys are blinkered by their lust for the past. They have told and retold Laver's story. But when we consider the facts, it is clear that the story of Rod Laver’s greatness is simply a myth.

But when we consider the facts, it is clear that the story of Rod Laver’s greatness is simply a myth.

Facts are facts. He has done what other male GOAT candidates haven't. Calendar Grand Slam